Martin v. Director of Revenue

14 Citing cases

  1. Rugg v. Director of Revenue

    271 S.W.3d 613 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008)

    This was sufficient to indicate an unusual or illegal operation of her motor vehicle to a prudent officer. See Martin v. Director of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App. 2008). There was also sufficient uncontroverted evidence of indicia of intoxication to show probable cause.

  2. State v. Burks

    373 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 21 times
    Finding sufficient evidence of intoxication included glassy, watery, and bloodshot eyes; strong odor of intoxicants; swaying, staggering, stumbling; admission to drinking; failing field sobriety tests; and refusal to take breathalyzer test

    While defense counsel generally argued that failure to follow the NHTSA guidelines would affect the reliability of the tests, the trial court was presented with no evidence to that effect. See Martin v. Director of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 688–89 (Mo.App.2008). Defendant has cited no authority, and we are aware of none, holding that an adequate foundation for the admission of HGN test results requires testimony from the officer that all of the NHTSA guidelines were followed during the administration of that test.

  3. Pearson v. Koster

    367 S.W.3d 36 (Mo. 2012)   Cited 213 times
    Holding this Court reviews de novo the application of law to given facts

    More to the point, the frequency of reversals is irrelevant to the outcome of any particular case, because a court's decision to reverse or affirm necessarily depends on a careful and detailed examination of the facts of each case. See, e.g., Searcy v. Seedorff, 8 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 1999); Buckner v. Jordan, 952 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Mo. banc 1997); Grossman v. St. John, 323 S.W.3d 831, 834–35 (Mo.App. W.D.2010); Martha's Hands, LLC v. Rothman, 328 S.W.3d 474, 482 (Mo.App. E.D.2010); Sullins v. Knierim, 308 S.W.3d 241, 248 (Mo.App. E.D.2010); Glenstone Block Co. v. Pebworth, 330 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo.App. S.D.2010); In re D.O., 315 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo.App. S.D.2010); Andrews v. Andrews, 290 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Mo.App. E.D.2009); Wightman v. Wightman, 295 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Mo.App. E.D.2009); West v. Dir. of Revenue, 297 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (before Scott, C.J., Lynch, P.J., and Rahmeyer, J.); Rozier v. Dir. of Revenue, 272 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Mo.App. W.D.2008); Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App. W.D.2008); Viacom Outdoor, Inc. v. Taouil, 254 S.W.3d 234, 238 (Mo.App. E.D.2008); Davis v. Schmidt, 210 S.W.3d 494, 518 (Mo.App. W.D.2007); In re R.M., 234 S.W.3d 619, 625 (Mo.App. E.D.2007); Swartz v. Johnson, 192 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Mo.App. W.D.2006); Manager of Div. of Fin. of Jackson Cnty. v. La–Sha Consulting, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 605, 607 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (before Newton, P.J., Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Huskey v. Dir. of Revenue, 183 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (before Raymeyer, P.J., Parrish and Lynch, JJ.); Pride v. Lewis, 179 S.W.3d 375, 377 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (before Ulrich, P.J., Breckenridge and Smart, JJ.); Doerhoff v. Salmons, 162 S.W.3d 498, 502–03 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (before Holliger, P.J., Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 162 S.W.3d 512, 516–17 (Mo.App. W.D.2005); Campbell v. Dir. of Revenue, 172 S.W.3d 476, 477 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Callanan v. Dir. of Revenue, 163 S.W.3d 509, 512–15 (Mo.App. E.D.2005); Tarneja v. Tarneja, 164 S.W.3d 555, 564 (Mo.App. S.D.2

  4. Pearson v. Koster

    No. SC92317 (Mo. May. 25, 2012)

    re to the point, the frequency of reversals is irrelevant to the outcome of any particular case, because a court's decision to reverse or affirm necessarily depends on a careful and detailed examination of the facts of each case. See, e.g., Searcy v. Seedorff, 8 S.W.3d 113, 115 (Mo. banc 1999); Buckner v. Jordan, 952 S.W.2d 710, 712 (Mo. banc 1997); Grossman v. St. John, 323 S.W.3d 831, 834-35 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010); Martha's Hands, LLC v. Rothman, 328 S.W.3d 474, 482 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Sullins v. Knierim, 308 S.W.3d 241, 248 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010); Glenstone Block Co. v. Pebworth, 330 S.W.3d 98, 103 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010); In re D.O., 315 S.W.3d 406, 408 (Mo. App. S.D. 2010); Andrews v. Andrews, 290 S.W.3d 783, 788 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); Wightman v. Wightman, 295 S.W.3d 183, 187 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009); West v. Dir. of Revenue, 297 S.W.3d 648, 650 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (before Scott, C.J., Lynch, P.J., and Rahmeyer, J.); Rozier v. Dir. of Revenue, 272 S.W.3d 262, 266 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008); Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008); Viacom Outdoor, Inc. v. Taouil, 254 S.W.3d 234, 238 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008); Davis v. Schmidt, 210 S.W.3d 494, 518 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007); In re R.M., 234 S.W.3d 619, 625 (Mo. App. E.D. 2007); Swartz v. Johnson, 192 S.W.3d 752, 755 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006); Manager of Div. of Fin. of Jackson Cnty. v. La-Sha Consulting, Inc., 224 S.W.3d 605, 607 (Mo. App. W.D. 2006) (before Newton, P.J., Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Huskey v. Dir. of Revenue, 183 S.W.3d 628, 629 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (before Raymeyer, P.J., Parrish and Lynch, JJ.); Pride v. Lewis, 179 S.W.3d 375, 377 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (before Ulrich, P.J., Breckenridge and Smart, JJ.); Doerhoff v. Salmons, 162 S.W.3d 498, 502-03 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (before Holliger, P.J.,Breckenridge and Ellis, JJ.); Mahoney v. Mahoney, 162 S.W.3d 512, 516-17 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005); Campbell v. Dir. of Revenue, 172 S.W.3d 476, 477 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005); Callanan v. Dir. of Revenue, 163 S.W.3d 509, 512-15 (Mo. App. E.D. 2005); Tarneja v. Tarneja, 164 S.W.3d 55

  5. English v. Barnett

    No. WD86145 (Mo. Ct. App. Jul. 2, 2024)

    Where, as here, "the evidence is uncontroverted or admitted, so that the real issue is a legal one as to the legal effect of the evidence, there is no need to defer to the trial court's judgment." Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). Therefore, the issue on appeal is what legal standard a property owner/developer must meet to create an easement across its own property and preserve it for the benefit of future lot owners and whether the relevant evidence supported a finding that Developers met that standard in this case.

  6. Srader v. Dir. Revenue

    525 S.W.3d 600 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 1 times

    Missouri courts have repeatedly held that erratic driving and the commission of traffic violations are indicia of intoxication which can support a finding of probable cause when coupled with other observations indicating impairment. See , e.g. , Hill v. Dir. of Revenue , 424 S.W.3d 495, 499-500 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ; Martin v. Dir. of Revenue , 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008) ; Arch v. Dir. of Revenue , 186 S.W.3d 477, 480 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006).Officer Mohler also testified that, after he stopped Srader, he observed that Srader's speech was slurred, and that his eyes were watery, glassy, and bloodshot. Combined with Srader's erratic driving, these observations likewise support a probable cause determination.

  7. Jarboe v. Dir. of Revenue

    468 S.W.3d 478 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The trial court may not simply disregard, particularly in the absence of a credibility finding, the uncontroverted evidence. Bouillon, 306 S.W.3d at 202; Martin v. Director of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Mo.App.W.D.2008). Here, the trial court erred in refusing to consider third-party witness statements contained in the police report to determine whether Officer Frauenfelder had reasonable grounds to believe Respondent was driving while intoxicated.

  8. State v. Avent

    432 S.W.3d 249 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 16 times
    Noting “gratuitous oral statements made by the trial court are to be disregarded by this Court entirely unless there is an ambiguity in the language of the written judgment or order”

    182 S.W.3d at 248 (quoting McCarthy v. Dir. of Revenue, 120 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo.App. E.D.2003)). See also Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo.App. W.D.2008). Here, Corporal Owens lawfully stopped Avent's vehicle because she was speeding.

  9. State v. Avent

    WD76395 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2014)

    182 S.W.3d at 248 (quoting McCarthy v. Dir. of Revenue, 120 S.W.3d 760, 763 (Mo. App. E.D. 2003)). See also Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Mo. App. W.D. 2008). Here, Corporal Owens lawfully stopped Avent's vehicle because she was speeding.

  10. Baber v. Director of Revenue, State

    317 S.W.3d 680 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 2 times

    " Id. "As long as the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, the appellate court will affirm the judgment, regardless of whether the appellate court would have reached the same result." Martin v. Dir. of Revenue, 248 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Mo.App. 2008). "But if the evidence is uncontroverted or admitted, so that the real issue is a legal one as to the legal effect of the evidence, there is no need to defer to the circuit court's judgment.